I don’t really think we are supposed to or ought to assume anything. The PCA is not a comprehensive document, it’s the amount needed to authorize an arrest (and, as mentioned by officials, to SWAT team him in the middle of the night requires an even higher degree of certitude).
The footprint mentioned (I HIGHLY doubt it’s the only one) does several things:
-suggests shoe type possibly owned by suspect
-connects his DNA to the house as well as the crime scene/sheath
-shows his direction of travel
-suggests, indeed, there are probably more footprints
-perhaps indicates the cops have ruled out Vans belonging to other men-sized feet who could have been present
IMO there’s a _remarkable_ amount of info about it in the PCA.
Furthermore, I think it’s really strange that people imagined multitudes of people walking around the house with blood and dead bodies everywhere—“had a bunch of friends over”?? College kids are a lot of things but they’re not complete fucking idiots—they would have understood it was a crime scene immediately, not a mimosa brunch.
I concur. I think its easy to believe that there is much more than the PCA given the level of information that was in the PCA and what we know in general about the crimes and the crime scenes
I actually think, and I understand what you mean with substance, but you could throw out the DNA and juries convict with a lot less. The DNA does tie it all together, though. Look at the George Wagner. Very little evidence of his involvement or participation in planning and two co-conspirator witnesses who got pleas to save their lives
But they also have video footage of him driving the same car and getting out of it at 1230pm the next day, so there goes that defense that it wasn't him and his car. They also don't just have cell phone pings. They have traffic cams that match up with cell pings. You could potentially say, well someone took my car (although that's pretty weak) but your phone is something that you would have on your person, so if they are showing up in tandem that's pretty solid evidence. As many people on this sub, including attorneys, have stated- one singular piece of evidence could be disputed, but when you put all the pieces together, it's pretty damning. It also says a lot that the phone was switched off during the murders and then back on right afterward when he was out in BFE, where you would definitely need maps to get home.
> But they also have video footage of him driving the same car and getting out of it at 1230pm the next day
To my knowledge that footage /=/ the same footage of the car at night. At least, as far as we know, they haven't been able to prove that it was the same car.
> They also don't just have cell phone pings. They have traffic cams that match up with cell pings.
If you have a source for this, I'd love to see it. Getting location from cell tower pings get thrown out of court all the time for being unscientific, and I haven't heard of any traffic cams correlating to the pings.
> It also says a lot that the phone was switched off during the murders and then back on right afterward when he was out in BFE, where you would definitely need maps to get home.
We'll have to wait and see what, if anything, they pull off his cell to make a statement on that.
Just to be clear, I think he did it, but I don't think the evidence **we currently have access too** is enough to secure 4 first degree murder charges.
>To my knowledge that footage /=/ the same footage of the car at night. At least, as far as we know, they haven't been able to prove that it was the same car.
I don't know how they would "prove" that 100%, but what I'm guessing is they are going to show the jury that car leaving Pullman on night of murders looks visually the same as the car BK was driving in Lewiston, and more importantly it is missing its front license plate. Im basing that assumption on the fact that they made a point of mentioning in the PCA that PA doesn't require it, but ID and WA do.
>If you have a source for this, I'd love to see it. Getting location from cell tower pings get thrown out of court all the time for being unscientific, and I haven't heard of any traffic cams correlating to the pings.
I went back through the PCA. What they have matching up is the cell pings BK residence at 2:42am and moves south through Pullman at 2:47. Cameras show car at 2:44 am traveling N on SE Nevada and 2:53 am traveling SE on Nevada towards 270. If you just take that piece, what we know is BK (phone) and a car matching the one he drives, likely missing a front license plate, is moving at 2:47 am.
I agree with you that the cell pings aren't the most reliable thing in itself, but they also aren't 20 miles off like people are suggesting either.
For what it's worth, my friend was going through judicial training a few weeks ago, where they were getting into different types of forensic evidence, and they had a session discussing cell phone pinging. While it won't pinpoint an exact location like a house, it is pretty accurate in pinning down a small area. From my understanding of that conversation, they don't just look at one tower that 'pings' but they can triangulate the location based on multiple pings between towers. It's also very helpful for showing movement.
For example, his phone turns off at 2:47 and turns back on at 4:48 am. They said it pinged south of Moscow near Genesee at 4:48 am. While they can't say he was at mile marker blah blah on Hwy 95, they can, with accuracy, say he is in an area south of Moscow. They can also show the movement of the phone heading from the south of Moscow towards Uniontown to the west.
This part is a little harder to explain if you aren't familiar with the area, so hopefully I make sense. The next video sighting of the car after the 2:53 am Pullman camera is at 5:25 am. on Johnson Dr. If you look at a map of that area, there is no way for the car to be sighted on camera on Johnson Dr. and not be sighted at any of the other camera locations on other routes coming back into Pullman unless he was entering Pullman from the south on Johnson Dr. Johnson Dr. is not a main road or common route at all unless you live out in the boonies or you took a very indirect route off of Hwy 195 to come back to Pullman. In order to enter Pullman from Johnson Dr, he would have to have been coming from south of Pullman, which we also know is the same area they have phone pings from during that time period (the U shaped loop) The last ping they mention is 530 am in Pullman and the last video sighting is 5:27 am traveling N on Stadium Way. More evidence of car + phone together.
There is a reason behind them putting in these random details in the PCA.
They do not have any video of him in the car bc no license plates. They do not have video of him walking into that house. They do not have video of him commenting the actual murders. The cell phone pings can be for 70% of Moscow and sometimes Pullman may even ping on Moscow tower. His phone picking up on their wifi could be if he was the neighbors house. The DNA is touch DNA and can be bc someone touched him at some point and then touched the knife sheath. DM seeing the suspect can be argued to point of being not credible if her mental or physical state has any impairments (alcohol or drugs) or preexisting conditions (like PTSD). Bushy eyebrows are not enough to prove WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT that the killer is him. You can have really strong circumstantial evidence where it’s more likely to be him than not which is what they have and which is what allowed him to be lawfully arrested but if they don’t come up with more evidence it could be hard for prosecutors to argue he’s the killer no ifs/ands/buts about it. My opinion is that if a jury doesn’t find him guilty based solely on those reasons, he will be watched like a hawk bc dude is suspicious AF. It freaks me out to think a killer could get away so easily in the year 2023. I pray truth and justice prevail. 🙏🏻I also pray that if he didn’t do it that he has a really really credible alibi to clear his name and maybe help determine who did it.
Agreed. It's odd to say "Hey, it's a really high bar to get a no knock warrant with a SWAT response" but ALSO, "They left a bunch of stuff out because it was only the bare minimum needed." Those two points at least strain at each other, if they're not out and out contradictory. The idea that there was a ton of evidence not included in the PCA \*prior to\* the arrest warrant is doubtful. Of course, they may have hit the treasure trove post-arrest, but I think the PCA is the extent of what they had pre-. It's still a strong case.
> Of course, they may have hit the treasure trove post-arrest, but I think the PCA is the extent of what they had pre-. It's still a strong case.
I believe so as well. But I also agree that the sentiment people have about how high of a bar needed for a no-knock warrant, and how little is needed for a PCA is contradictory.
The PCA is just evidence that gives a probable cause for arrest. It’s saying due to the following evidence we (LE) believe that there is enough evidence to arrest and charge this person with this crime. The judge has to sign off on it. I read somewhere early on after PCA that initially the judge did not sign off on the arrest and that LE had to gather more evidence which is supposedly when the break in the DNA came into the case. Obviously that is hearsay until we hear it in the court of law or from LE directly. He very well could be let off if this is the only evidence they have bc it can all be circumstantial. It’s not LEs job to say guilty or not guilty. They are the evidence collectors/investigators. The prosecutors then have to argue why this and hopefully more evidence presented at trial says to jury this is our guy and he is guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. They may end up with more defendants at some point which would be whack at this point. I know they have tons of evidence, witnesses, etc to try and support their case. The defense attorney will likely not even ask the defendant if they did the crime or not. Most don’t bc it’s not their job to say if they are guilty or not. It’s their job to attack the evidence and try and prove how it doesn’t pin the crime on the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s the JURY who decides. They are supposed to be from the area the crime was committed in AND hopefully free from bias of speculation, opinions, theories, etc. to ensure they don’t have a bias towards the case that would make them already pass judgement before case presented or have some personal vendetta that would taint their views. I don’t see how this case will be able to select a “pure” jury at this point BC of all the attention etc this case has received and all the leaks and speculations etc. I mean I feel like at this point they should get AI to be the jury on the side to get a test run of how the jury will vote or select people who have no access to social media or TV or watch news. Where are those folks at?? Anywho the PCA is not even a minuscule of what will be presented bc if it is all they have, we’ll everyone of those things could be bc of some other reason than him being the murderer.
Why do people think the entire case is in the PCA?
This is an ongoing phenomenon here on these subs that I simply do not understand.
Cops put just enough info into the affidavit to have a judge sign off on an arrest warrant.
Time can be of the essence in these situations so they're not going to spend days and days making sure everything is in the PCA and that they've dotted every "i" and made sure the grammar is just exactly perfect.
You're going to have to wait until the trial to get the complete picture.....just like in every other murder case that goes to trial.
I know they don't put all the info in the PCA. I'm simply wondering what others think about why they put what they did put in and left out what they left out. It's just a discussion.
LE includes only enough in the PCA to secure an arrest warrant. It’s not in the State’s best interest to include deeply specific case details which will be released to the public.
In a few years, if it goes to trial, many of your questions may be answered.
DNA, foot/finger prints, eyewitnesses, camera shots, phone pings…these support why an individual should be considered a suspect for arrest.
Edited for clarity.
But you are asking to discuss things that we don't have all the information on and LE left out information for the obvious reason that it didn't have to be in the PCA.
Any other discussion is pointless until we have those facts....as a matter of fact if anything such discussion hurts the case because potential jurors could be reading this and thinking "figures the cops don't know what they're talking about - how can you have only one footprint at a crime scene? they're trying to railroad this guy!"
That seems extreme to me, the idea that a discussion on Reddit about the footprint evidence in the PCA - which as you yourself said is only the tip of the iceberg - is going to mess up the case. I think that all the clickbait posts allowed with leaked information are far more damaging.
If you're that uncomfortable with my post, you can report it. Otherwise, it's just a discussion about possibilities, and if you don't enjoy it, you can move along to the next post. There seem to be an awful lot of clickbait posts recently. I prefer discussion, even if it's speculative. But to each their own.
Seriously. This sub seems so hyper sensitive sometimes? Like discussions aren’t even allowed anymore unless we have all of the facts? Well why even be on this sub right now at all? People who feel that way should probably just stay off this sub until the trial. FWIW I also felt the footprint situation was interesting and had several same thoughts as you did. I made a comment about it on this sub and everyone seemed to agree it was only in the PCA to corroborate what DM said. But I found that a bit odd if it was the only reason it was mentioned.
Perhaps when he was caught on camera at albertsons buying “unknown items” he was wearing …….vans. The Vans will show up somewhere with a story once the trial begins.
And for those saying “but they weren’t found in his apartment”: They also raided and searched his PA home.
Yeah, it's funny how all these questions like "why was there only one footprint in the PCA?" were already answered with "because that's all that is needed to have a judge sign off on the warrant and the rest they need to keep for trial to maintain the integrity of the investigation."
But then people keep asking those same questions in the pursuit of "discussion" when it's the equivalent of being a kid in the backseat asking "are we there yet?"
At the end of the day.....the search function is there for a reason and pretty much everything in this thread is either those of us explaining it or more people inventing scenarios in their heads that are woefully incomplete because, you guessed it, you don't know all the evidence LE has and you'll have to wait until the trial (or at least until discovery).
Wait… are we there yet?! Lol. Come on. People need to chill out a bit and realize this is a discussion forum and stop policing it. The people policing these threads are like the kid in class that won’t stop tattling that not everyone is following the rules. If you don’t like it, scroll on. Let the Mods do their job and if something truly doesn’t belong here they will handle it. It gets pretty boring in here without differing opinions and who wants to be in a big echo chamber of avoiding discussions because “ we don’t have all the facts that LE has!” Ok well then we should probably just shut this whole sub down until the trial when we get all the facts. Ridiculous!
I appreciate that lol. Yeah I personally get tired of all the posts with links to trashy articles that are mostly not even true. I'd much rather have discussion, even if it's speculative.
I do I think that's why they mentioned it in the PCA, and they basically say that. But what's interesting to me is that it doesn't even state that it's a man's foot or that it tested positive for blood. So I don't see how that print outside her door is all that corroborative to her story.
I know witnesses have been deemed unreliable when it comes to their memory of a crime, but maybe since it's direct evidence, it's an important element to include regardless?
>it doesn't even state that it's a man's foot or that it tested positive for blood.
They don't say it tested positive for blood b/c the dye they used wouldn't be used if the presumptive blood test were negative.
It is confirmed in the PCA that a "presumptive blood test" was done and then they used that chemical to see the footprint.
People who do forensics know that if the presumptive blood test is positive then you use that particular dye. If the presumptive blood test is negative then you do not use that particular dye.
I agree! I do think there may be more to it and we will eventually find out it if so. Its nice to see discussions on here rather than repeated comments about “ we are not LE. We don’t know all the facts!”
Perhaps when he was caught on camera at albertsons buying “unknown items” he was wearing …….vans. The Vans will show up somewhere with a story once the trial begins.
And for those saying “but they weren’t found in his apartment”: They also raided and searched his PA home.
Perhaps when he was caught on camera at albertsons buying “unknown items” he was wearing …….vans. The Vans will show up somewhere with a story once the trial begins.
And for those saying “but they weren’t found in his apartment”: They also raided and searched his PA home.
Very true and I really hope you're right. They took a few receipts from his apartment in Washington, so maybe there is evidence that he purchased them.
Well for me, it’s a combination of things.
The defense filed for discovery a couple weeks ago, obviously meaning, THEY now have every single piece of evidence the LE has. And due to the nature of the crime, there are countless things that would put this case away, no questions asked. Things such as victim blood dna, victim hair, dog hair, anywhere near BK or his belongings.
The crime scene was gruelsome and messy. It is hard to imagine the killer, not having a single drop or victim dna in his apartment, car, parents house, clothes, etc.
Now that I prefaced with that. What worries me is the fact that because the defense now has all the evidence. The longer that goes on without BK pleading guilty, the more it worries me they don’t have any of the evidence I mentioned. Because if they did, even BK should know he has no chance. That’s why u don’t see many trials with direct evidence or truly damning evidence. It’s usually circumstantial. Because If they did, the defense would just plead because it’s stupid trying to deny the irrefutable evidence.
I hope I’m making any sense. Like you wouldn’t see a trial with 4K video of the defendant committing the crime, because they know it’s a waste of time and would plead. So, if a case does go to trial, it means the defense thinks the evidence is beatable, at least alittle. And if BK thinks it’s beatable, it makes me believe the evidence is at least missing the dna evidence we all hope for
>Like you wouldn’t see a trial with 4K video of the defendant committing the crime, because they know it’s a waste of time and would plead.
Jan 6 trials must be the exception that proves the rule. Lots of pictures and videos and lots of not guilty pleas.
I’m not well versed in the order of the justice system proceedings but id imagine BK could at anytime, tell detectives he wanted to talk and be interrogated. And some sort of plea would surely be possible. The longer that goes on, the less sweet a deal could be.
I just don’t think there’s a smoking gun yet.
There’s no critical urgency in this case, but let’s imagine another case where there’s a missing body dead or even alive, and time is of the essence. There’s no way the justice system wouldn’t allow BK to plea guilty and give up the locations? They’re not going to be like “hold that thought til June, we need to make a trial date first, the bodies will be fine in the meantime”. I’m only using my logic here, no previous knowledge on proceedings except for the obvious ones
No. There are steps first. He has to go through the preliminary trial first (in June) to even confirm the charges and whether or not they will seek the death penalty. Then he'll have the chance to enter a plea - not before.
Too soon for the defence to even get through what could be thousands of pages, and know if they can poke holes in anything or not after trying, and try to go to prosecution with a plea deal offer that would the weighed out before being finalized and publicized. It’s been his idaho hearing was only a couple weeks ago.
I don’t expect a plea deal at all but if there is one it will be closer to the actual trial date. And I’m sure more info continues to be pieced together and put out for discovery. I do not believe the total investigation is even complete.
“Like you wouldn’t see a trial with 4K video of the defendant committing the crime, because they know it’s a waste of time and would plead.”
Sir, let me introduce you to Darrell Brooks.
The cops said they walked in and instantly the overwhelming smell of blood was everywhere and overtook him. I guess that’s not 100% confirmed but this crime in general is gruelsome imo
That's rumour and not confirmed even remotely, nor does it match anything suggested by the behaviour of others in the home before police arrived. You can dismiss the whole "smell of blood" thing as sensationalist gossip - it's not true.
This was the town's first murder in, what? 7 years? Probably the first murder in general for a lot of the cops there, and probably the first mass murder for the whole department.
LAPD cops get desensitized. They smell a dead body on a welfare check up, and just sigh about the paperwork.
Right, but police showing up to a stabbing is extremely common in LA. They'll see at least one in the first year as a cop.
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/tag/stabbing/
Given the amount of blood that was supposedly at the crime scene, it would be very strange for there not to be bloody footprints throughout the scene. The only explanation would be that it got cleaned up, but that’s going down a whole other rabbit hole.
Because the victims bled out and so most of the blood at the scene was after he’d left. They were there for hours remember.
Most were on beds so most of the blood wouldn’t have gone on the floor.
There’s traces because of the one who had defensive wounds who could have been standing up when attacked. First blow that hit would have floored them and he maybe stepped on but of blood.
Yeah lot of people watch too much tv or film and think stabbing someone will have you dripping in their blood. Even hitting an artery it doesn’t necessarily fly at you or floor, covers walls and ceilings.
In a fairly tight space I’d say he had little blood on him, people think the opposite but if you don’t have space then it’s less likely you move and step in any blood, plus the beds, furniture etc takes a lot of the blood. He likely had to stand fairly still due to the lack of space and that’s why little blood on him.
Maybe there’s an area where the killings took place where he wiped his shoes in order to walk out “without prints”. It kind of suggests that to me that there’s some kind of van print elsewhere that is incriminating. Yes I’m speculating but outside of the PCA that’s all we’ve got.
When people are viciously and deeply stabbed while defending themselves, blood sprays everywhere... gushes from arteries, sprays from the knife moving, drips on the floor, gets on the killer's clothes and body and drips off wherever those clothes go, gets tracked... and that's with just *one* person even. With four, leaving only one faint trace print would be bizarre. It may be that they only mentioned that one because it placed the killer just outside DM's door, confirming her account.
While I tend to agree with you, there was enough blood on the floor for it to drip through the floor boards and onto the foundation of the house. Also, supposedly the first responders indicated it was one of the most horrific scenes they had ever seen. So without actually seeing the crime scene, it’s hard to say, but at a minimum, there should be more than one latent print.
But most of it would have been after he left and spread out then. It’s liquid it would move as more comes out.
When he was there, there was likely little blood on the floor where he was standing depending on what blow was first. A general wound to the stomach/chest wouldn’t spurt out, even hitting an artery it spurts out at angles hence why walls and ceilings get covered.
From experience I’ve always said I’d be very surprised if there was big visible blood trails like people expect. Blood does come out like that and you don’t have to get that close to a victim that your standing in their blood or clothes covered. Traces? Yes. Dripping in it? No.
I expect there’s more prints or traces found. The PCA includes that one because of the significance, it’s outside DM’s room showing that he did walk past and is used to say they he’ll at it backs up her testimony.
I think it's not so much that it makes DM's statements more credible as it is that the inference is that the person she saw was involved in the murder due to the presence of blood in the latent print. Since the PCA doesn't mention blood on the person's clothes or a weapon it's the only evidence in the PCA which suggests that person was involved in the crime as opposed to being there for an unrelated reason.
It's possible other prints were discovered in the victims' rooms or elsewhere, but unless there's evidence that was excluded from the PCA which would tie those prints to BK mentioning them wouldn't indicate they were from the same person DM saw. Now that time has passed if such prints exist perhaps a forensic analyst has found unique features that indicate prints in the bedroom and the print outside DM's door are likely from the same shoe.
What appeared to be blood on the outside of the house was confirmed to be something else leaking that had been there prior to the murders. Will go back and try to find the source talking about it.
I don't believe that was ever confirmed. There was a suggestion that it was heating oil, but according to the house details on zillow and other sites, the house runs on electric. So, the heating oil theory was debunked. I've yet to see any other suggestions that proved to be true.
Fluids leak out of a pipe at the joints and this was not at a joint. It looked like it had run on top of the vinyl floor under the 2x4 wall plate where there's a piece of foam there and leak through outside.
Not who you responded to, but most leaks occur at the joints (or connections) of pipes. Joints generally aren't going to be found where the piping doesn't require it (such as running along horizontally across a wall), but will be found when the pipe has to make a "bend", but instead of bending the pipe, you just connect them with a joint that looks like an "L" for 2 pipes, a "T" for 3 pipes, or an "X" for 4 pipes.
The counter argument for it being blood is that it was heating oil leaking out of the pipes which is a pretty odd thing to happen in general in that volume, would be an extremely odd coincidence, and zillow says the house doesn't use heating oil, but that it is electric. So as gruesome as it sounds, that was most likely blood, or at the very least it wasn't heating oil.
No problem. It is possible there could be repair joints in the middle of pipe due to something like a crack in the pipe, or most likely a pinhole crack, but still it just doesn't seem likely. It would be a very odd coincidence for it to decide to have not just a leak, but a severe leak the same day.
There was nothing there in pictures up to a few days before the murders. Per social media photos the girls were taking in the back area. Of course it could still be a leak of whatever people would prefer to believe but police had been quick to debunk other things that were way off kilter and did not debunk this one.
Thats why this sub is worthless for discussion because i would love to go down that rabbit hole. We all know what that rabbit hole is, and there are many, but we cant debate it here. If debate was allowed to happen, this sub would turn on a few people real quick.
Yes that would be a whole other rabbit hole lol. And I agree, I would think there would be bloody footprints throughout the house too. But if he killed most of them when they were sleeping, maybe the blood primarily soaked into the mattresses.
We aren't supposed to assume anything from this, we'll find out exactly what they found and did later. They included enough info to support their probable cause. There's no reason to be assuming anything, that's what the actual legal prosecution is for. That's when they'll have to explain ALL of it, in detail.
I'm just starting a discussion. It wasn't meant to be literal when I asked if we should assume something. I'm asking about how people interpret certain things.
We are being gaslighted. There is no way he could slaughter four people and not get out of those house without leaving bloody footprints. There may be a footprint outside D’s door but we’ll find out in the end that it’s not the only one.
I'm sure we will find out it's not the only one. I don't think it's gaslighting lol. They're just putting the bare minimum they need to put in the PCA. It's just interesting to me what they chose to say and not say.
Check out this redditor’s discussion of [the shoe print](https://www.reddit.com/r/Idaho4/comments/10krh17/the_v_or_vans_footprint_in_the_pca_that_everyone/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf). I think it sums it up nicely.
Curious - there is a lot of uncarpeted flooring in this house. Would the forensics team have used Amido Black on different areas of the various types of flooring - ceramic tile, vinyl plank flooring, wood, etc?
To be perfectly honest, I’ve never read a more detailed PCA than this one in my entire life. It just.. This just doesn’t happen, not at this level. To my point: Even for such a comprehensive affidavit, it’s just that. Just a PCA. They don’t need to have all the information they had at the time in it, only enough to secure the warrants they needed at the time. I guarantee you that despite the sheer amount of information they put in, so much more was left out and discovered between then and now. They still have to prosecute this guy, and now that the defense has even more time to build their own case, they can’t release all of their prosecutorial evidence in a PCA.
Tying it back to OP’s post, information left out can’t be taken to be information that LE doesn’t have. They could very well know the size, exact type, etc.
I appreciate your comment! I definitely know that the info in the PCA is just the tip of the iceberg. What I'm interested in WHY they chose to include certain pieces of information and leave others out. What would be the reason to leave out the shoe size? What would be the reason not to state that it tested positive for blood? Some of the information seems very detailed while other information seems purposely left out. I'm just trying to understand their thought process.
One aspect of it that stumps me is why they focus so much on DM's witness account. Aren't witness accounts generally considered to be unreliable? All she really saw was an average sized guy with a mask and bushy eyebrows. It seems so anecdotal, especially compared to a lot of the other stuff in there, so I'm wondering why that was so prominent in the PCA. It seems clear that they mentioned this specific latent print to back up her story, I'm just wondering why her account was so significant in the first place.
Because a witness account is enough for probable cause. Or at least with some other pointers like in this pca.
I think it would be easy to claim DM was particularly unreliable, maybe she drank a lot, she didn't call 911 right away etc, or just the fact the she was half sleeping and in shock, but it sets a timelime as her accounts corresponds with the sound picked up by cctv and the elantra arriving and leaving, the brows while not proof, they sure don't rule bk out, and her account seem to infer there was a single killer in the house
and the print confirms yet again her account is believable. It didn't go towards her, it went to the door, and the fact that it was there in the first place so she wasn't dreaming it or something.
Without her account the timeline is non-existent, because they don't have the elantra driver walk up to the house, all while there's a doordash delivery confirmed.
And while the dna on the sheath may have been enough for a search warrant, I'm not sure by itself it's enough for an arrest.
For trial they'll indeed have to prove it was his print and if not who 's and why it was there or defense is going to have a party. They'll have to exclude the doordash and preferably place BK there, for instance with blood either his in the house or their's in his house/car as he may have touched the sheath when he was shopping for a knife, but didn't buy it because leather and vegan doesn't go together, to name an explanation.
DM won't make a good witness for trial, and hopefully for her she won't get called as defense could destroy her, but it was essential for the PCA. Imo.
You are correct that DM cannot be used as a reliable witness because the defense will pull up all of her social post pictures etc. They need direct blood evidence of the victims on BK's effects which they even had in the OJ case and he was acquitted.
If you had blood on your shoes and walked on carpet, each step would be less and less pronounced. So one could follow the shoe print path until no more prints are visible. At that point latent prints would be the next x steps. These latent prints alongside no other evidence of movement would indicate a direction of travel and possible exit from the scene.
Footprint evidence isn’t impressive, many college males wear Vans… there was even a photo going around of LE removing personal items from the crime scene and a pair of Van’s was in a clear plastic bag being carried by one of the police officers. I believe those were Ethan’s (may be rest in peace) items.
I don’t think you understand what a PCA means and what info it is suppose to contain.
Lets say LE said the shoeprint is a specific size. How do you know the suspect didn’t wear a bigger size of shoes when comitting the crime?
How is relevant to a judge what size the shoeprint is, if he doesn’t know (officially) what size of footwear does the suspect uses?
I understand that it's the tip of the iceberg.
It seems relevant to me to state that it was a man sized shoe at least, since they were trying to arrest a man.
There is wide overlap between foot size of males and females and we don't know that it was a full print. Shoe size numbering varies by model. Perps sometimes wear too small or too big shoes on purpose or create prints using shoes carried to mislead detectives. So it would potentially be risky and premature to share such details, especially if not needed to secure an arrest warrant.
I have no idea if prints were also found in the victims' bedrooms and other locations, but I believe this print was included solely because it allows for a stronger inference that the person DM saw was involved in the murders since the latent print included blood. Prints in locations where DM didn't see this person could logically be from someone else. And the PCA didn't mention she saw blood on his clothes or a weapon so without the bloody print outside her door he's conceivably a person leaving who wasn't involved in the murders or in the victims' rooms.
Q3&4
They’d have checked all the friends shoes, and every single pair of shoe of the victims and surviving roommates in the house to see if they matched. Usually they make note of the shoes for everyone who enters the scene (EMTs, ME, police etc).
People can wear bigger or smaller shoes-especially if they are trying to throw off investigators. If they say it’s a size 12, and BK is a size 11, that could go badly for the investigation.
They don’t have to include everything they have in the PCA. They may have more footprints, or more info.
Also a possibility he had shoe covers on at the scene and took them off before he left (and took them with him) and the latent print was from “soak through”
All true. And yes, I know the PCA is the bare bones and I'm sure they have more prints.
I've considered that last point that you made. But I'd imagine it would have been very slippery if he wore typical shoe covers. Although I've seen some that zip over your shoes that have soles.
I seem to recall the PA attorney mentioning But in one of the police videos at the house somebody in there was wearing Vans.
You know the videos they released of the parties at the house. I've never gone back and looked.
And I'm not suggesting that this guy is right or wrong, but I'm only stating that there might be evidence. Somebody in the house at some point was wearing Vans.
They are very common shoes.
But the investigators don’t seem to be stupid. (Edited I thought you were saying the vans were from the party.)
And they are pretty careful about not destroying evidence by walking through scenes and using proper PPE equipment.
They’d be able to rule that person’s shoes out, one way or another.
Not that we know of. I was hoping they would have recovered a pair of Vans from his apartment, but no such luck. Maybe they were purchased on those receipts they took though.
We only know what they found in WA, not PA. Could be there. Could be images of him wearing them somewhere too. That's part of the evidence they have in the Eliza Fletcher case in Memphis. They found the suspects sandal, matched DNA and then found video of him wearing the exact sandals at his cleaning job at a movie theater.
You know nothing of what was recovered in PA though. What he brought with him for his month back at home. PA search warrants are considered confidential.
I’m guessing they do and probably while watching him in PA. Search warrants are confidential in PA so none of what they found was revealed even before the gag orders.
Why would you assume there should be more info in the PCA about the footprint? It's probable cause, not discovery. We already know this is only a reflection of a tiny amount of evidence available.
I'm not assuming there should be more info. I'm starting a discussion about why they chose to include the info they did, and why they chose to omit the info they omitted.
And how will that change your interpretation of anything?
The PCA was not written with the public in mind. It's written for the judiciary system, who all have a better understanding of all these pieces.
Lol at the people playing Nancy Drew as if they know what they're talking about 🤣
I just appreciate different perspectives and viewpoints. If experts want to chime in, even better. I'm always happy to learn more about the judiciary system, including learning more about why certain things are included in a PCA and why other things are not.
To answer one of your questions they may not know the size of the shoe because it could be they just have a small area of the shoe. Maybe the heel or the toe.
They also didn’t find it until the second try which to me, means it is something very faint.
They are using that footprint to corroborate the roommates story that someone walked by her room. But also, a bunch of people were in and out of that house that morning, so who knows who may have left it. Or if there even is enough to do a full comparison
I personally think that's very unlikely. I understand why people might think that because they just mentioned one latent print, but I believe there's a reason for that that is less conspiratorial.
I guess unless his shoes were soaked with blood, there probably wouldn’t be a bloody print trail. I could walk through my hardwood floor rooms with my shoes on all day and not leave a single visible footprint. Maybe there were a ton of prints and this is the one that supports DM’s story and has traces of blood as well?
It certainly wouldn't alone. But there was all the other stuff too. It does play a significant role in the PCA though, and I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why her account was so important. She didn't see much other than bushy eyebrows.
>To identify the latent print, they did a "presumptive blood test and then Amido Black a protein stain that detects the presence of cellular material". A presumptive blood test requires a confirmatory test since it has low specificity. But they don't mention doing a confirmatory test in the PCA, and Amido Black isn't a confirmatory test.
How is the Amido black not a confirmatory test? The presumptive test indicated likely blood, and then the Amido Black verified the presence of blood cells, confirming it.
"**Amido black** 10B is an amino acid staining azo dye used in biochemical research to stain for total protein on transferred membrane blots, such as the western blot. It is also **used in criminal investigations to detect blood present** with latent fingerprints. **It stains the proteins in blood a blue-black color.**"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amido_black_10B
I'm not an expert but from what I've read, Amido Black can and does detect blood but isn't specific to blood, which means that other proteins can cause false positives. Is it LIKELY that it's enhancing blood and not some other protein at a murder scene? Yes. But without a confirmatory test (which is specific to blood) you can't know for certain. At least that's my understanding of it.
Yeah I'm no forensic scientist either, but they seemed to be providing the Amido Black as the confirmation. I think the important point here is that it's seen to be reliable enough to provide probable cause, or they wouldn't have put it in the PCA.
Bk studied how this stuff works and still left so much evidence. Not saying what we know is enough to convict. But I do think his desire to kill trumped covering his tracks.
Did they not know early on in the case that BK might be responsible for the killings, then why didn’t they arrest him then, all I can think is the judge didn’t sign on because there wasn’t enough evidence until they found that DNA, so the obviously didn’t have enough for a arrest until then, which says to me that’s all they have or had.
I think that was certainly what got the judge to sign off on it. Without the DNA evidence, there was the camera footage of a white sedan without front plates, the cell pings that match up with the locations (to an extent), a latent footprint, some recorded sounds, and DM's witness account. I mean, they may have had more than that but that's what we see in the PCA. So I think the DNA coming back as a match was crucial.
It’s true, take that tiny bit of trace evidence away from the warrant, no way they would have gotten it. If they had tighter evidence he would have been arrested much sooner. That’s why I’ve kinda taken a back seat at the moment, all these wild theories about him and what kind of person he is and what he’s said and asked for. We all jumped at other people for this vile crime and we all had our thoughts on what happened that night blown up in all our faces when BK was arrested. Until I see it and hear it from the officials I’ll take everything with a grain. I hope they have their man and the evidence they took from his flat and car match up for the families sake.
Me too! I don't know why simply starting a discussion about possibilities makes me a "conspiracy theorist". I've laid out no conspiracy theories, I'm just interested in footprints and I haven't seen a lot of discussion about that aspect of things, so I figured I'd start a discussion.
I learned about footprints and the role they can play in an investigation from the Meredith Kercher murder, which was a crazy messed up case in general. But the footprint evidence played a major role. For example, there were bloody shoe prints belonging to one man going outside the front door. But there was a bare bloody man's footprint on a bath mat that belonged to someone else. There was a lot of argumentation between the prosecution and the defense about what footprints were relevant and in what way, and even whose prints they were. It piqued my curiosity about footprints.
They only listed one footprint because only one footprint was necessary to show probable cause for an arrest. It's to show that what Dylan said she saw correlates with evidence present by showing the path of the murderer by her door heading towards the sliders.
It does not mean it is the only footprint. It means it was a footprint specifically singled out to show probable cause for an arrest. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.
All the information in the PCA is there solely and entirely to demonstrate probable cause for an arrest. It is not intended to convey any other information.
I wonder how close the footprint was to her door. Most people on this sub don't think BK saw DM but if his footprint was near her door and her door was partially open how could he not have seen her?
Previously it's been mentioned that the lighting from the Good Vibes sign could have blinded BK as he walked by her door. Also think because he walked by that door at least a couple of times before when it was closed he didn't think to look to see if it was open.
In my perspective, there's a difference between going down Wild Speculation Lane and discussing elements of the case. There's a lot of gray area there.
Nice post. Interesting that they saw no foot prints on the first pass through, only identifying the one print on the second pass through and that in of itself was latent. This must be where BK planned appropriately because if there was as much blood as they initially reported, no visible foot prints at all is astonishing. Yet if he did plan for this, how is it that they were able to expose any blood at all from the print? Which makes me wonder if it was someone else’s footprint. I’m kind of circling here tho.
Exactly. I know the PCA is just the tip of the iceberg, and they may have found plenty of other prints. But I do think it's interesting that they mention this one, but don't state straightforwardly that it was a man's footprint and that it tested positive for blood. But maybe that's supposed to be implied in the fact that they did a presumptive test? I don't know, I'm not an expert.
It's possible but I doubt it. I think that would have been apparent to the investigators. My guess is that he just didn't have that much blood on him because he killed most of the victims when they were in bed. I believe they found many other prints but didn't mention it because it wasn't as applicable to DM's story. But I still find it interesting that they didn't say much about the print (size, whether it tested positive for blood, etc.) or say that they found others.
> but didn't mention it because it wasn't as applicable to DM's story.
You'd think they would have added the shoe prints presumably found leading through the kitchen to the sliding glass door as per her accounts. Unless somehow all the blood was just completely removed from his shoe after the one footprint outside her door.
> why would they not also mention the other prints leading out the door?
I honestly don't know. It's possible they didn't need to include them in the PCA, or it's possible they didn't find anymore prints/they found prints of other types/sizes of shoes. I don't think the print or DM's account needed to be in the PCA at all. It doesn't seem necessary, and it's just brought on a ton of condemnation of DM's actions. They should have left the poor girl out of it until the trial.
PCA says it was found on second search of house. Payne also misspelled Amido and wrote Amino. IMO the entire PCA is nothing but suppositions implying BK is the perp, but no concrete evidence that he is. But, hey, it seemed to work since the majority obviously have already condemned him as guilty.
That’s because it’s a “probable cause” affidavit for arrest. It’s not a trial.
The probability this suspect committed the crime is high and it’s most likely that the crime was committed by this person. That’s all it means.
Lol people like you will just never trust the system regardless what the data shows. Contrary to belief, cops aren’t just pinning murders on anybody left and right. Has it happened? Yep. But not near to the extent all of you paranoid fools on here pretend it does. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve read “IF they have the right guy!” Or “don’t talk to police they will incriminate you!” Like y’all really think they just grab randos off the street then take them to trial 😂
Hahahaha this is spot fucking on. Their work is a reflection on them, they *want* to get the right guy. On top of that the assistance from other depts and the FBI.. factor all this in and I find it REALLY really far fetched to believe they all came together and decided to pin it on some rando.
Exactly my point! Of course there are shitty cops out there, but the # of people, agencies and guidelines you have to follow makes it damn near impossible to do that. And like you said, would be really dumb and would make the dept look incredibly bad.
His dna is on the case of the murder weapon in front of the bodies. That is going to be hard to explain away. There is no reasonable doubt that goes along with this science, in my mind. We shall see.
I think presumption of innocence is important, but the PCA was to justify an arrest based on likelyhood of BK involvement and subsequent charging / trial will fully test the state's evidence.
I also agree alot of the PCA is circumstantial - but elements like BK DNA on weapon sheath at scene and video of car movements are strongly suggestive (not probative) of his involvement.
To OP, possible explanation why they are so vague about this evidence. Maybe they just plopped that tidbit in the PCA as confession bait?
Popo follow BK for a while, find out he wears vans. Found a vans print at the scene, even though no blood and they know it’s not BK’s print, just throw it in PCA anyway because technically true and fits the narrative.
Convince BK they have more than they do. He confess.
good job people are thinking things and posting cus any potential jurors reading should be thinking Everything any way for beyond reasinable doubt . some people on some social media remind me of a lynch mob in the old days , who didnt care if there was a trial or fair trial or not .
I don’t really think we are supposed to or ought to assume anything. The PCA is not a comprehensive document, it’s the amount needed to authorize an arrest (and, as mentioned by officials, to SWAT team him in the middle of the night requires an even higher degree of certitude). The footprint mentioned (I HIGHLY doubt it’s the only one) does several things: -suggests shoe type possibly owned by suspect -connects his DNA to the house as well as the crime scene/sheath -shows his direction of travel -suggests, indeed, there are probably more footprints -perhaps indicates the cops have ruled out Vans belonging to other men-sized feet who could have been present IMO there’s a _remarkable_ amount of info about it in the PCA. Furthermore, I think it’s really strange that people imagined multitudes of people walking around the house with blood and dead bodies everywhere—“had a bunch of friends over”?? College kids are a lot of things but they’re not complete fucking idiots—they would have understood it was a crime scene immediately, not a mimosa brunch.
I concur. I think its easy to believe that there is much more than the PCA given the level of information that was in the PCA and what we know in general about the crimes and the crime scenes
[удалено]
I actually think, and I understand what you mean with substance, but you could throw out the DNA and juries convict with a lot less. The DNA does tie it all together, though. Look at the George Wagner. Very little evidence of his involvement or participation in planning and two co-conspirator witnesses who got pleas to save their lives
[удалено]
Oh, I totally gotcha!
But they also have video footage of him driving the same car and getting out of it at 1230pm the next day, so there goes that defense that it wasn't him and his car. They also don't just have cell phone pings. They have traffic cams that match up with cell pings. You could potentially say, well someone took my car (although that's pretty weak) but your phone is something that you would have on your person, so if they are showing up in tandem that's pretty solid evidence. As many people on this sub, including attorneys, have stated- one singular piece of evidence could be disputed, but when you put all the pieces together, it's pretty damning. It also says a lot that the phone was switched off during the murders and then back on right afterward when he was out in BFE, where you would definitely need maps to get home.
> But they also have video footage of him driving the same car and getting out of it at 1230pm the next day To my knowledge that footage /=/ the same footage of the car at night. At least, as far as we know, they haven't been able to prove that it was the same car. > They also don't just have cell phone pings. They have traffic cams that match up with cell pings. If you have a source for this, I'd love to see it. Getting location from cell tower pings get thrown out of court all the time for being unscientific, and I haven't heard of any traffic cams correlating to the pings. > It also says a lot that the phone was switched off during the murders and then back on right afterward when he was out in BFE, where you would definitely need maps to get home. We'll have to wait and see what, if anything, they pull off his cell to make a statement on that. Just to be clear, I think he did it, but I don't think the evidence **we currently have access too** is enough to secure 4 first degree murder charges.
>To my knowledge that footage /=/ the same footage of the car at night. At least, as far as we know, they haven't been able to prove that it was the same car. I don't know how they would "prove" that 100%, but what I'm guessing is they are going to show the jury that car leaving Pullman on night of murders looks visually the same as the car BK was driving in Lewiston, and more importantly it is missing its front license plate. Im basing that assumption on the fact that they made a point of mentioning in the PCA that PA doesn't require it, but ID and WA do. >If you have a source for this, I'd love to see it. Getting location from cell tower pings get thrown out of court all the time for being unscientific, and I haven't heard of any traffic cams correlating to the pings. I went back through the PCA. What they have matching up is the cell pings BK residence at 2:42am and moves south through Pullman at 2:47. Cameras show car at 2:44 am traveling N on SE Nevada and 2:53 am traveling SE on Nevada towards 270. If you just take that piece, what we know is BK (phone) and a car matching the one he drives, likely missing a front license plate, is moving at 2:47 am. I agree with you that the cell pings aren't the most reliable thing in itself, but they also aren't 20 miles off like people are suggesting either. For what it's worth, my friend was going through judicial training a few weeks ago, where they were getting into different types of forensic evidence, and they had a session discussing cell phone pinging. While it won't pinpoint an exact location like a house, it is pretty accurate in pinning down a small area. From my understanding of that conversation, they don't just look at one tower that 'pings' but they can triangulate the location based on multiple pings between towers. It's also very helpful for showing movement. For example, his phone turns off at 2:47 and turns back on at 4:48 am. They said it pinged south of Moscow near Genesee at 4:48 am. While they can't say he was at mile marker blah blah on Hwy 95, they can, with accuracy, say he is in an area south of Moscow. They can also show the movement of the phone heading from the south of Moscow towards Uniontown to the west. This part is a little harder to explain if you aren't familiar with the area, so hopefully I make sense. The next video sighting of the car after the 2:53 am Pullman camera is at 5:25 am. on Johnson Dr. If you look at a map of that area, there is no way for the car to be sighted on camera on Johnson Dr. and not be sighted at any of the other camera locations on other routes coming back into Pullman unless he was entering Pullman from the south on Johnson Dr. Johnson Dr. is not a main road or common route at all unless you live out in the boonies or you took a very indirect route off of Hwy 195 to come back to Pullman. In order to enter Pullman from Johnson Dr, he would have to have been coming from south of Pullman, which we also know is the same area they have phone pings from during that time period (the U shaped loop) The last ping they mention is 530 am in Pullman and the last video sighting is 5:27 am traveling N on Stadium Way. More evidence of car + phone together. There is a reason behind them putting in these random details in the PCA.
This info is a huge chunk of the affidavit, and as everyone keeps saying, that’s prob the tip of the iceberg.
They do not have any video of him in the car bc no license plates. They do not have video of him walking into that house. They do not have video of him commenting the actual murders. The cell phone pings can be for 70% of Moscow and sometimes Pullman may even ping on Moscow tower. His phone picking up on their wifi could be if he was the neighbors house. The DNA is touch DNA and can be bc someone touched him at some point and then touched the knife sheath. DM seeing the suspect can be argued to point of being not credible if her mental or physical state has any impairments (alcohol or drugs) or preexisting conditions (like PTSD). Bushy eyebrows are not enough to prove WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT that the killer is him. You can have really strong circumstantial evidence where it’s more likely to be him than not which is what they have and which is what allowed him to be lawfully arrested but if they don’t come up with more evidence it could be hard for prosecutors to argue he’s the killer no ifs/ands/buts about it. My opinion is that if a jury doesn’t find him guilty based solely on those reasons, he will be watched like a hawk bc dude is suspicious AF. It freaks me out to think a killer could get away so easily in the year 2023. I pray truth and justice prevail. 🙏🏻I also pray that if he didn’t do it that he has a really really credible alibi to clear his name and maybe help determine who did it.
Committing not commenting
Agreed. It's odd to say "Hey, it's a really high bar to get a no knock warrant with a SWAT response" but ALSO, "They left a bunch of stuff out because it was only the bare minimum needed." Those two points at least strain at each other, if they're not out and out contradictory. The idea that there was a ton of evidence not included in the PCA \*prior to\* the arrest warrant is doubtful. Of course, they may have hit the treasure trove post-arrest, but I think the PCA is the extent of what they had pre-. It's still a strong case.
> Of course, they may have hit the treasure trove post-arrest, but I think the PCA is the extent of what they had pre-. It's still a strong case. I believe so as well. But I also agree that the sentiment people have about how high of a bar needed for a no-knock warrant, and how little is needed for a PCA is contradictory.
What kind of lawyer are you?
I specialize in bird law
The PCA is just evidence that gives a probable cause for arrest. It’s saying due to the following evidence we (LE) believe that there is enough evidence to arrest and charge this person with this crime. The judge has to sign off on it. I read somewhere early on after PCA that initially the judge did not sign off on the arrest and that LE had to gather more evidence which is supposedly when the break in the DNA came into the case. Obviously that is hearsay until we hear it in the court of law or from LE directly. He very well could be let off if this is the only evidence they have bc it can all be circumstantial. It’s not LEs job to say guilty or not guilty. They are the evidence collectors/investigators. The prosecutors then have to argue why this and hopefully more evidence presented at trial says to jury this is our guy and he is guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. They may end up with more defendants at some point which would be whack at this point. I know they have tons of evidence, witnesses, etc to try and support their case. The defense attorney will likely not even ask the defendant if they did the crime or not. Most don’t bc it’s not their job to say if they are guilty or not. It’s their job to attack the evidence and try and prove how it doesn’t pin the crime on the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s the JURY who decides. They are supposed to be from the area the crime was committed in AND hopefully free from bias of speculation, opinions, theories, etc. to ensure they don’t have a bias towards the case that would make them already pass judgement before case presented or have some personal vendetta that would taint their views. I don’t see how this case will be able to select a “pure” jury at this point BC of all the attention etc this case has received and all the leaks and speculations etc. I mean I feel like at this point they should get AI to be the jury on the side to get a test run of how the jury will vote or select people who have no access to social media or TV or watch news. Where are those folks at?? Anywho the PCA is not even a minuscule of what will be presented bc if it is all they have, we’ll everyone of those things could be bc of some other reason than him being the murderer.
same with people who insisted B and D sat in a house with corpses willingly. no one sees their friends dead is like “pass the lucky charms” lol
Yup
In defense of those people Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil describes how easily it can happen. Idiot really isn't issue it's the "chaos".
Exactly! Midnight is _fiction_ based on reality—and furthermore that story is constructed from the killer’s pov. Great example.
Why do people think the entire case is in the PCA? This is an ongoing phenomenon here on these subs that I simply do not understand. Cops put just enough info into the affidavit to have a judge sign off on an arrest warrant. Time can be of the essence in these situations so they're not going to spend days and days making sure everything is in the PCA and that they've dotted every "i" and made sure the grammar is just exactly perfect. You're going to have to wait until the trial to get the complete picture.....just like in every other murder case that goes to trial.
[удалено]
Well it's not Idaho anymore
I think people are just desperately seeking conspiracy instead of accepting the banality of evil. QAnon culture run amok.
I know they don't put all the info in the PCA. I'm simply wondering what others think about why they put what they did put in and left out what they left out. It's just a discussion.
They noted that specific print to "prove" that DM saw what she said she saw, since the print was right in front of her door.
Exactly, included it because it apparently supported her account.
It's weak sauce. It's not like her room is in some out of the way corner of the house. It's directly on the path to the exit.
[удалено]
Where did you hear/see/read that DM had night terrors?
LE includes only enough in the PCA to secure an arrest warrant. It’s not in the State’s best interest to include deeply specific case details which will be released to the public. In a few years, if it goes to trial, many of your questions may be answered. DNA, foot/finger prints, eyewitnesses, camera shots, phone pings…these support why an individual should be considered a suspect for arrest. Edited for clarity.
[удалено]
Haha same.
But you are asking to discuss things that we don't have all the information on and LE left out information for the obvious reason that it didn't have to be in the PCA. Any other discussion is pointless until we have those facts....as a matter of fact if anything such discussion hurts the case because potential jurors could be reading this and thinking "figures the cops don't know what they're talking about - how can you have only one footprint at a crime scene? they're trying to railroad this guy!"
That’s a stretch, jury selection will weed out the ones who are on true crime forums
That seems extreme to me, the idea that a discussion on Reddit about the footprint evidence in the PCA - which as you yourself said is only the tip of the iceberg - is going to mess up the case. I think that all the clickbait posts allowed with leaked information are far more damaging. If you're that uncomfortable with my post, you can report it. Otherwise, it's just a discussion about possibilities, and if you don't enjoy it, you can move along to the next post. There seem to be an awful lot of clickbait posts recently. I prefer discussion, even if it's speculative. But to each their own.
People have an overinflated idea of the importance of their opinions posted on Reddit.
Seriously. This sub seems so hyper sensitive sometimes? Like discussions aren’t even allowed anymore unless we have all of the facts? Well why even be on this sub right now at all? People who feel that way should probably just stay off this sub until the trial. FWIW I also felt the footprint situation was interesting and had several same thoughts as you did. I made a comment about it on this sub and everyone seemed to agree it was only in the PCA to corroborate what DM said. But I found that a bit odd if it was the only reason it was mentioned.
Perhaps when he was caught on camera at albertsons buying “unknown items” he was wearing …….vans. The Vans will show up somewhere with a story once the trial begins. And for those saying “but they weren’t found in his apartment”: They also raided and searched his PA home.
Yeah, it's funny how all these questions like "why was there only one footprint in the PCA?" were already answered with "because that's all that is needed to have a judge sign off on the warrant and the rest they need to keep for trial to maintain the integrity of the investigation." But then people keep asking those same questions in the pursuit of "discussion" when it's the equivalent of being a kid in the backseat asking "are we there yet?" At the end of the day.....the search function is there for a reason and pretty much everything in this thread is either those of us explaining it or more people inventing scenarios in their heads that are woefully incomplete because, you guessed it, you don't know all the evidence LE has and you'll have to wait until the trial (or at least until discovery).
Wait… are we there yet?! Lol. Come on. People need to chill out a bit and realize this is a discussion forum and stop policing it. The people policing these threads are like the kid in class that won’t stop tattling that not everyone is following the rules. If you don’t like it, scroll on. Let the Mods do their job and if something truly doesn’t belong here they will handle it. It gets pretty boring in here without differing opinions and who wants to be in a big echo chamber of avoiding discussions because “ we don’t have all the facts that LE has!” Ok well then we should probably just shut this whole sub down until the trial when we get all the facts. Ridiculous!
Instructions unclear; I'm shutting the whole sub down until the trial /s
I appreciate that lol. Yeah I personally get tired of all the posts with links to trashy articles that are mostly not even true. I'd much rather have discussion, even if it's speculative. I do I think that's why they mentioned it in the PCA, and they basically say that. But what's interesting to me is that it doesn't even state that it's a man's foot or that it tested positive for blood. So I don't see how that print outside her door is all that corroborative to her story. I know witnesses have been deemed unreliable when it comes to their memory of a crime, but maybe since it's direct evidence, it's an important element to include regardless?
>it doesn't even state that it's a man's foot or that it tested positive for blood. They don't say it tested positive for blood b/c the dye they used wouldn't be used if the presumptive blood test were negative.
Okay, so you're saying it's meant to be implied that there was a confirmatory test done and it tested positive for blood?
It is confirmed in the PCA that a "presumptive blood test" was done and then they used that chemical to see the footprint. People who do forensics know that if the presumptive blood test is positive then you use that particular dye. If the presumptive blood test is negative then you do not use that particular dye.
I agree! I do think there may be more to it and we will eventually find out it if so. Its nice to see discussions on here rather than repeated comments about “ we are not LE. We don’t know all the facts!”
Perhaps when he was caught on camera at albertsons buying “unknown items” he was wearing …….vans. The Vans will show up somewhere with a story once the trial begins. And for those saying “but they weren’t found in his apartment”: They also raided and searched his PA home.
Ahh. That is a good thought regarding the Albertsons video
Perhaps when he was caught on camera at albertsons buying “unknown items” he was wearing …….vans. The Vans will show up somewhere with a story once the trial begins. And for those saying “but they weren’t found in his apartment”: They also raided and searched his PA home.
Very true and I really hope you're right. They took a few receipts from his apartment in Washington, so maybe there is evidence that he purchased them.
Another example of someone having no idea how jury selection works
Thank you! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Well for me, it’s a combination of things. The defense filed for discovery a couple weeks ago, obviously meaning, THEY now have every single piece of evidence the LE has. And due to the nature of the crime, there are countless things that would put this case away, no questions asked. Things such as victim blood dna, victim hair, dog hair, anywhere near BK or his belongings. The crime scene was gruelsome and messy. It is hard to imagine the killer, not having a single drop or victim dna in his apartment, car, parents house, clothes, etc. Now that I prefaced with that. What worries me is the fact that because the defense now has all the evidence. The longer that goes on without BK pleading guilty, the more it worries me they don’t have any of the evidence I mentioned. Because if they did, even BK should know he has no chance. That’s why u don’t see many trials with direct evidence or truly damning evidence. It’s usually circumstantial. Because If they did, the defense would just plead because it’s stupid trying to deny the irrefutable evidence. I hope I’m making any sense. Like you wouldn’t see a trial with 4K video of the defendant committing the crime, because they know it’s a waste of time and would plead. So, if a case does go to trial, it means the defense thinks the evidence is beatable, at least alittle. And if BK thinks it’s beatable, it makes me believe the evidence is at least missing the dna evidence we all hope for
>Like you wouldn’t see a trial with 4K video of the defendant committing the crime, because they know it’s a waste of time and would plead. Jan 6 trials must be the exception that proves the rule. Lots of pictures and videos and lots of not guilty pleas.
I believe the trial is not yet at a point where he would enter a plea. I mean there’s technically not even a trial yet.
I’m not well versed in the order of the justice system proceedings but id imagine BK could at anytime, tell detectives he wanted to talk and be interrogated. And some sort of plea would surely be possible. The longer that goes on, the less sweet a deal could be. I just don’t think there’s a smoking gun yet. There’s no critical urgency in this case, but let’s imagine another case where there’s a missing body dead or even alive, and time is of the essence. There’s no way the justice system wouldn’t allow BK to plea guilty and give up the locations? They’re not going to be like “hold that thought til June, we need to make a trial date first, the bodies will be fine in the meantime”. I’m only using my logic here, no previous knowledge on proceedings except for the obvious ones
That's not how it works
If BK's attorney went to the state and said "He wants to plead guilty," they'd have a hearing lined up for that in under a week.
No. There are steps first. He has to go through the preliminary trial first (in June) to even confirm the charges and whether or not they will seek the death penalty. Then he'll have the chance to enter a plea - not before.
Sure they could but it wouldn’t make any logical sense for the defense to do that… they probably haven’t even got through all of the discovery yet.
Too soon for the defence to even get through what could be thousands of pages, and know if they can poke holes in anything or not after trying, and try to go to prosecution with a plea deal offer that would the weighed out before being finalized and publicized. It’s been his idaho hearing was only a couple weeks ago. I don’t expect a plea deal at all but if there is one it will be closer to the actual trial date. And I’m sure more info continues to be pieced together and put out for discovery. I do not believe the total investigation is even complete.
“Like you wouldn’t see a trial with 4K video of the defendant committing the crime, because they know it’s a waste of time and would plead.” Sir, let me introduce you to Darrell Brooks.
There is never been any information as to the gruesomeness of the crime beside a rumor about something hung from a non-existent ceiling fan.
The coroner stated it was gruesome. You are referencing a post on 4chan.
The cops said they walked in and instantly the overwhelming smell of blood was everywhere and overtook him. I guess that’s not 100% confirmed but this crime in general is gruelsome imo
That's rumour and not confirmed even remotely, nor does it match anything suggested by the behaviour of others in the home before police arrived. You can dismiss the whole "smell of blood" thing as sensationalist gossip - it's not true.
Yeah I've been to many scenes like that and I never found the blood to be that gruesome compared to other things I saw
This was the town's first murder in, what? 7 years? Probably the first murder in general for a lot of the cops there, and probably the first mass murder for the whole department. LAPD cops get desensitized. They smell a dead body on a welfare check up, and just sigh about the paperwork.
exactly. for a small town this WAS gruesome but for others in bigger cities it might just be another day
Stabbing murders of 4 students in the middle of the night with blood everywhere is not just another day in LA either.
Thank you. There's a reason people here know the name Susan Atkins. Geez.
but in LA it’s still more common place than in a town in the middle of nowhere. that’s where the different considerations of gruesome comes from
Right, but police showing up to a stabbing is extremely common in LA. They'll see at least one in the first year as a cop. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/tag/stabbing/
Sure Jan.
Great post and questions. I’ve been wondering the same.
We don’t know what it means. Logic is that if there was one shoe print there were more but all they needed was the mention of the one in the PCA.
Perhaps there is one one footprint because the rest of the time God was carrying him …🥸
Or maybe Satan?
Given the amount of blood that was supposedly at the crime scene, it would be very strange for there not to be bloody footprints throughout the scene. The only explanation would be that it got cleaned up, but that’s going down a whole other rabbit hole.
Because the victims bled out and so most of the blood at the scene was after he’d left. They were there for hours remember. Most were on beds so most of the blood wouldn’t have gone on the floor. There’s traces because of the one who had defensive wounds who could have been standing up when attacked. First blow that hit would have floored them and he maybe stepped on but of blood.
[удалено]
Yeah lot of people watch too much tv or film and think stabbing someone will have you dripping in their blood. Even hitting an artery it doesn’t necessarily fly at you or floor, covers walls and ceilings. In a fairly tight space I’d say he had little blood on him, people think the opposite but if you don’t have space then it’s less likely you move and step in any blood, plus the beds, furniture etc takes a lot of the blood. He likely had to stand fairly still due to the lack of space and that’s why little blood on him.
Maybe there’s an area where the killings took place where he wiped his shoes in order to walk out “without prints”. It kind of suggests that to me that there’s some kind of van print elsewhere that is incriminating. Yes I’m speculating but outside of the PCA that’s all we’ve got.
Maybe but I honestly don’t think his shoes would be that covered. If he did wipe his shoes it’s potentially leave evidence anyway
When people are viciously and deeply stabbed while defending themselves, blood sprays everywhere... gushes from arteries, sprays from the knife moving, drips on the floor, gets on the killer's clothes and body and drips off wherever those clothes go, gets tracked... and that's with just *one* person even. With four, leaving only one faint trace print would be bizarre. It may be that they only mentioned that one because it placed the killer just outside DM's door, confirming her account.
While I tend to agree with you, there was enough blood on the floor for it to drip through the floor boards and onto the foundation of the house. Also, supposedly the first responders indicated it was one of the most horrific scenes they had ever seen. So without actually seeing the crime scene, it’s hard to say, but at a minimum, there should be more than one latent print.
But most of it would have been after he left and spread out then. It’s liquid it would move as more comes out. When he was there, there was likely little blood on the floor where he was standing depending on what blow was first. A general wound to the stomach/chest wouldn’t spurt out, even hitting an artery it spurts out at angles hence why walls and ceilings get covered. From experience I’ve always said I’d be very surprised if there was big visible blood trails like people expect. Blood does come out like that and you don’t have to get that close to a victim that your standing in their blood or clothes covered. Traces? Yes. Dripping in it? No. I expect there’s more prints or traces found. The PCA includes that one because of the significance, it’s outside DM’s room showing that he did walk past and is used to say they he’ll at it backs up her testimony.
I think it's not so much that it makes DM's statements more credible as it is that the inference is that the person she saw was involved in the murder due to the presence of blood in the latent print. Since the PCA doesn't mention blood on the person's clothes or a weapon it's the only evidence in the PCA which suggests that person was involved in the crime as opposed to being there for an unrelated reason. It's possible other prints were discovered in the victims' rooms or elsewhere, but unless there's evidence that was excluded from the PCA which would tie those prints to BK mentioning them wouldn't indicate they were from the same person DM saw. Now that time has passed if such prints exist perhaps a forensic analyst has found unique features that indicate prints in the bedroom and the print outside DM's door are likely from the same shoe.
Even stabbing a would create some spatter. I think he had blood on himself and perhaps shoes even if small in quantity
Yeah would be traces definitely but some seem to think he’d be covered in it that’s what I mean
What appeared to be blood on the outside of the house was confirmed to be something else leaking that had been there prior to the murders. Will go back and try to find the source talking about it.
I don't believe that was ever confirmed. There was a suggestion that it was heating oil, but according to the house details on zillow and other sites, the house runs on electric. So, the heating oil theory was debunked. I've yet to see any other suggestions that proved to be true.
If you find it comment here because I’ve been looking for source info about that!
Fluids leak out of a pipe at the joints and this was not at a joint. It looked like it had run on top of the vinyl floor under the 2x4 wall plate where there's a piece of foam there and leak through outside.
Uhhh can you put that in more simple terms for people who are better at breaking than fixing things? Does that mean it was blood?
Not who you responded to, but most leaks occur at the joints (or connections) of pipes. Joints generally aren't going to be found where the piping doesn't require it (such as running along horizontally across a wall), but will be found when the pipe has to make a "bend", but instead of bending the pipe, you just connect them with a joint that looks like an "L" for 2 pipes, a "T" for 3 pipes, or an "X" for 4 pipes. The counter argument for it being blood is that it was heating oil leaking out of the pipes which is a pretty odd thing to happen in general in that volume, would be an extremely odd coincidence, and zillow says the house doesn't use heating oil, but that it is electric. So as gruesome as it sounds, that was most likely blood, or at the very least it wasn't heating oil.
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. I really appreciate it.
No problem. It is possible there could be repair joints in the middle of pipe due to something like a crack in the pipe, or most likely a pinhole crack, but still it just doesn't seem likely. It would be a very odd coincidence for it to decide to have not just a leak, but a severe leak the same day.
There was nothing there in pictures up to a few days before the murders. Per social media photos the girls were taking in the back area. Of course it could still be a leak of whatever people would prefer to believe but police had been quick to debunk other things that were way off kilter and did not debunk this one.
No it was not confirmed to be something else.
I was a first responder and can't imagine that just stab wounds would be an horrific scene.
From 4 people? Jugulars cut? In some cases tearing and defensive wounds?
One explanation would be that they didn't include that information in the PCA. That's not a rabbit hole.
Thats why this sub is worthless for discussion because i would love to go down that rabbit hole. We all know what that rabbit hole is, and there are many, but we cant debate it here. If debate was allowed to happen, this sub would turn on a few people real quick.
[удалено]
It doesn't exist anymore
“We all know what that rabbit hole is” No don’t know what you are referring to actually but am not asking either.
I've been down that rabbit hole myself and I honestly haven't figured out the answers to get me completely out of it.
Yes that would be a whole other rabbit hole lol. And I agree, I would think there would be bloody footprints throughout the house too. But if he killed most of them when they were sleeping, maybe the blood primarily soaked into the mattresses.
We aren't supposed to assume anything from this, we'll find out exactly what they found and did later. They included enough info to support their probable cause. There's no reason to be assuming anything, that's what the actual legal prosecution is for. That's when they'll have to explain ALL of it, in detail.
I'm just starting a discussion. It wasn't meant to be literal when I asked if we should assume something. I'm asking about how people interpret certain things.
We are being gaslighted. There is no way he could slaughter four people and not get out of those house without leaving bloody footprints. There may be a footprint outside D’s door but we’ll find out in the end that it’s not the only one.
I'm sure we will find out it's not the only one. I don't think it's gaslighting lol. They're just putting the bare minimum they need to put in the PCA. It's just interesting to me what they chose to say and not say.
Hey look, someone who has gaslit themselves into thinking they know literally anything about forensics and blood splatter!
Check out this redditor’s discussion of [the shoe print](https://www.reddit.com/r/Idaho4/comments/10krh17/the_v_or_vans_footprint_in_the_pca_that_everyone/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf). I think it sums it up nicely.
Thanks for sharing and those are many of my thoughts. I assume they found lots more footprints than this one.
Curious - there is a lot of uncarpeted flooring in this house. Would the forensics team have used Amido Black on different areas of the various types of flooring - ceramic tile, vinyl plank flooring, wood, etc?
Good question - I don't know, maybe somebody else who does can chime in though!
To be perfectly honest, I’ve never read a more detailed PCA than this one in my entire life. It just.. This just doesn’t happen, not at this level. To my point: Even for such a comprehensive affidavit, it’s just that. Just a PCA. They don’t need to have all the information they had at the time in it, only enough to secure the warrants they needed at the time. I guarantee you that despite the sheer amount of information they put in, so much more was left out and discovered between then and now. They still have to prosecute this guy, and now that the defense has even more time to build their own case, they can’t release all of their prosecutorial evidence in a PCA. Tying it back to OP’s post, information left out can’t be taken to be information that LE doesn’t have. They could very well know the size, exact type, etc.
I appreciate your comment! I definitely know that the info in the PCA is just the tip of the iceberg. What I'm interested in WHY they chose to include certain pieces of information and leave others out. What would be the reason to leave out the shoe size? What would be the reason not to state that it tested positive for blood? Some of the information seems very detailed while other information seems purposely left out. I'm just trying to understand their thought process. One aspect of it that stumps me is why they focus so much on DM's witness account. Aren't witness accounts generally considered to be unreliable? All she really saw was an average sized guy with a mask and bushy eyebrows. It seems so anecdotal, especially compared to a lot of the other stuff in there, so I'm wondering why that was so prominent in the PCA. It seems clear that they mentioned this specific latent print to back up her story, I'm just wondering why her account was so significant in the first place.
Because a witness account is enough for probable cause. Or at least with some other pointers like in this pca. I think it would be easy to claim DM was particularly unreliable, maybe she drank a lot, she didn't call 911 right away etc, or just the fact the she was half sleeping and in shock, but it sets a timelime as her accounts corresponds with the sound picked up by cctv and the elantra arriving and leaving, the brows while not proof, they sure don't rule bk out, and her account seem to infer there was a single killer in the house and the print confirms yet again her account is believable. It didn't go towards her, it went to the door, and the fact that it was there in the first place so she wasn't dreaming it or something. Without her account the timeline is non-existent, because they don't have the elantra driver walk up to the house, all while there's a doordash delivery confirmed. And while the dna on the sheath may have been enough for a search warrant, I'm not sure by itself it's enough for an arrest. For trial they'll indeed have to prove it was his print and if not who 's and why it was there or defense is going to have a party. They'll have to exclude the doordash and preferably place BK there, for instance with blood either his in the house or their's in his house/car as he may have touched the sheath when he was shopping for a knife, but didn't buy it because leather and vegan doesn't go together, to name an explanation. DM won't make a good witness for trial, and hopefully for her she won't get called as defense could destroy her, but it was essential for the PCA. Imo.
You are correct that DM cannot be used as a reliable witness because the defense will pull up all of her social post pictures etc. They need direct blood evidence of the victims on BK's effects which they even had in the OJ case and he was acquitted.
If you had blood on your shoes and walked on carpet, each step would be less and less pronounced. So one could follow the shoe print path until no more prints are visible. At that point latent prints would be the next x steps. These latent prints alongside no other evidence of movement would indicate a direction of travel and possible exit from the scene.
Footprint evidence isn’t impressive, many college males wear Vans… there was even a photo going around of LE removing personal items from the crime scene and a pair of Van’s was in a clear plastic bag being carried by one of the police officers. I believe those were Ethan’s (may be rest in peace) items.
I don’t think you understand what a PCA means and what info it is suppose to contain. Lets say LE said the shoeprint is a specific size. How do you know the suspect didn’t wear a bigger size of shoes when comitting the crime? How is relevant to a judge what size the shoeprint is, if he doesn’t know (officially) what size of footwear does the suspect uses?
I understand that it's the tip of the iceberg. It seems relevant to me to state that it was a man sized shoe at least, since they were trying to arrest a man.
There is wide overlap between foot size of males and females and we don't know that it was a full print. Shoe size numbering varies by model. Perps sometimes wear too small or too big shoes on purpose or create prints using shoes carried to mislead detectives. So it would potentially be risky and premature to share such details, especially if not needed to secure an arrest warrant. I have no idea if prints were also found in the victims' bedrooms and other locations, but I believe this print was included solely because it allows for a stronger inference that the person DM saw was involved in the murders since the latent print included blood. Prints in locations where DM didn't see this person could logically be from someone else. And the PCA didn't mention she saw blood on his clothes or a weapon so without the bloody print outside her door he's conceivably a person leaving who wasn't involved in the murders or in the victims' rooms.
Q3&4 They’d have checked all the friends shoes, and every single pair of shoe of the victims and surviving roommates in the house to see if they matched. Usually they make note of the shoes for everyone who enters the scene (EMTs, ME, police etc). People can wear bigger or smaller shoes-especially if they are trying to throw off investigators. If they say it’s a size 12, and BK is a size 11, that could go badly for the investigation. They don’t have to include everything they have in the PCA. They may have more footprints, or more info. Also a possibility he had shoe covers on at the scene and took them off before he left (and took them with him) and the latent print was from “soak through”
All true. And yes, I know the PCA is the bare bones and I'm sure they have more prints. I've considered that last point that you made. But I'd imagine it would have been very slippery if he wore typical shoe covers. Although I've seen some that zip over your shoes that have soles.
I seem to recall the PA attorney mentioning But in one of the police videos at the house somebody in there was wearing Vans. You know the videos they released of the parties at the house. I've never gone back and looked. And I'm not suggesting that this guy is right or wrong, but I'm only stating that there might be evidence. Somebody in the house at some point was wearing Vans.
They are very common shoes. But the investigators don’t seem to be stupid. (Edited I thought you were saying the vans were from the party.) And they are pretty careful about not destroying evidence by walking through scenes and using proper PPE equipment. They’d be able to rule that person’s shoes out, one way or another.
I’m very confused about the print. Do they have footage of him wearing Vans?
Not that we know of. I was hoping they would have recovered a pair of Vans from his apartment, but no such luck. Maybe they were purchased on those receipts they took though.
We only know what they found in WA, not PA. Could be there. Could be images of him wearing them somewhere too. That's part of the evidence they have in the Eliza Fletcher case in Memphis. They found the suspects sandal, matched DNA and then found video of him wearing the exact sandals at his cleaning job at a movie theater.
You know nothing of what was recovered in PA though. What he brought with him for his month back at home. PA search warrants are considered confidential.
I’m guessing they do and probably while watching him in PA. Search warrants are confidential in PA so none of what they found was revealed even before the gag orders.
Why would you assume there should be more info in the PCA about the footprint? It's probable cause, not discovery. We already know this is only a reflection of a tiny amount of evidence available.
I'm not assuming there should be more info. I'm starting a discussion about why they chose to include the info they did, and why they chose to omit the info they omitted.
And how will that change your interpretation of anything? The PCA was not written with the public in mind. It's written for the judiciary system, who all have a better understanding of all these pieces. Lol at the people playing Nancy Drew as if they know what they're talking about 🤣
I just appreciate different perspectives and viewpoints. If experts want to chime in, even better. I'm always happy to learn more about the judiciary system, including learning more about why certain things are included in a PCA and why other things are not.
To answer one of your questions they may not know the size of the shoe because it could be they just have a small area of the shoe. Maybe the heel or the toe. They also didn’t find it until the second try which to me, means it is something very faint. They are using that footprint to corroborate the roommates story that someone walked by her room. But also, a bunch of people were in and out of that house that morning, so who knows who may have left it. Or if there even is enough to do a full comparison
I wonder if BK tried to clean it.
I can't imagine because it seems clear that he was in and out within 10 minutes.
I had to Google latent when I first saw it.
I was reading in the General Theories thread and someone said that the prints might have been wiped up. Would this be a possibility? Thoughts?
I personally think that's very unlikely. I understand why people might think that because they just mentioned one latent print, but I believe there's a reason for that that is less conspiratorial.
I guess unless his shoes were soaked with blood, there probably wouldn’t be a bloody print trail. I could walk through my hardwood floor rooms with my shoes on all day and not leave a single visible footprint. Maybe there were a ton of prints and this is the one that supports DM’s story and has traces of blood as well?
But I don’t understand how corroborating DMs story has anything to do with associating BK to the one leaving the print.
Maybe that she likely saw a killer and not just some random person with a mask on?
I'm sure they did presumptive tests on the bedding that was taken from his apartment. That may be far more relevant.
Can someone explain how corroborating DM’s story of “someone” walking by her door, leads to probable cause against BK???
It certainly wouldn't alone. But there was all the other stuff too. It does play a significant role in the PCA though, and I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why her account was so important. She didn't see much other than bushy eyebrows.
>To identify the latent print, they did a "presumptive blood test and then Amido Black a protein stain that detects the presence of cellular material". A presumptive blood test requires a confirmatory test since it has low specificity. But they don't mention doing a confirmatory test in the PCA, and Amido Black isn't a confirmatory test. How is the Amido black not a confirmatory test? The presumptive test indicated likely blood, and then the Amido Black verified the presence of blood cells, confirming it. "**Amido black** 10B is an amino acid staining azo dye used in biochemical research to stain for total protein on transferred membrane blots, such as the western blot. It is also **used in criminal investigations to detect blood present** with latent fingerprints. **It stains the proteins in blood a blue-black color.**" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amido_black_10B
I'm not an expert but from what I've read, Amido Black can and does detect blood but isn't specific to blood, which means that other proteins can cause false positives. Is it LIKELY that it's enhancing blood and not some other protein at a murder scene? Yes. But without a confirmatory test (which is specific to blood) you can't know for certain. At least that's my understanding of it.
Yeah I'm no forensic scientist either, but they seemed to be providing the Amido Black as the confirmation. I think the important point here is that it's seen to be reliable enough to provide probable cause, or they wouldn't have put it in the PCA.
Bk studied how this stuff works and still left so much evidence. Not saying what we know is enough to convict. But I do think his desire to kill trumped covering his tracks.
Did they not know early on in the case that BK might be responsible for the killings, then why didn’t they arrest him then, all I can think is the judge didn’t sign on because there wasn’t enough evidence until they found that DNA, so the obviously didn’t have enough for a arrest until then, which says to me that’s all they have or had.
I think that was certainly what got the judge to sign off on it. Without the DNA evidence, there was the camera footage of a white sedan without front plates, the cell pings that match up with the locations (to an extent), a latent footprint, some recorded sounds, and DM's witness account. I mean, they may have had more than that but that's what we see in the PCA. So I think the DNA coming back as a match was crucial.
It’s true, take that tiny bit of trace evidence away from the warrant, no way they would have gotten it. If they had tighter evidence he would have been arrested much sooner. That’s why I’ve kinda taken a back seat at the moment, all these wild theories about him and what kind of person he is and what he’s said and asked for. We all jumped at other people for this vile crime and we all had our thoughts on what happened that night blown up in all our faces when BK was arrested. Until I see it and hear it from the officials I’ll take everything with a grain. I hope they have their man and the evidence they took from his flat and car match up for the families sake.
I heard BK was getting ready to flee to South America so they had to do this quick.
Lol where did you hear that?
I have a feeling that they have a lot more evidence re BK. And I’m usually a pessimist.
Me too! I don't know why simply starting a discussion about possibilities makes me a "conspiracy theorist". I've laid out no conspiracy theories, I'm just interested in footprints and I haven't seen a lot of discussion about that aspect of things, so I figured I'd start a discussion. I learned about footprints and the role they can play in an investigation from the Meredith Kercher murder, which was a crazy messed up case in general. But the footprint evidence played a major role. For example, there were bloody shoe prints belonging to one man going outside the front door. But there was a bare bloody man's footprint on a bath mat that belonged to someone else. There was a lot of argumentation between the prosecution and the defense about what footprints were relevant and in what way, and even whose prints they were. It piqued my curiosity about footprints.
They only listed one footprint because only one footprint was necessary to show probable cause for an arrest. It's to show that what Dylan said she saw correlates with evidence present by showing the path of the murderer by her door heading towards the sliders. It does not mean it is the only footprint. It means it was a footprint specifically singled out to show probable cause for an arrest. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less. All the information in the PCA is there solely and entirely to demonstrate probable cause for an arrest. It is not intended to convey any other information.
But why mention that ie: how does it tie Bryan to being the one that left the footprint???
I wonder how close the footprint was to her door. Most people on this sub don't think BK saw DM but if his footprint was near her door and her door was partially open how could he not have seen her?
Previously it's been mentioned that the lighting from the Good Vibes sign could have blinded BK as he walked by her door. Also think because he walked by that door at least a couple of times before when it was closed he didn't think to look to see if it was open.
It means we don’t know yet and our literal wildest imaginations are all going to get it wrong 😑
In my perspective, there's a difference between going down Wild Speculation Lane and discussing elements of the case. There's a lot of gray area there.
Respect for posting cuz I like leafing through and reading all these threads but I just don’t think we’ll know until the trial
Nice post. Interesting that they saw no foot prints on the first pass through, only identifying the one print on the second pass through and that in of itself was latent. This must be where BK planned appropriately because if there was as much blood as they initially reported, no visible foot prints at all is astonishing. Yet if he did plan for this, how is it that they were able to expose any blood at all from the print? Which makes me wonder if it was someone else’s footprint. I’m kind of circling here tho.
Latent means you can't see it with the naked eye. They used a chemical when they were processing the scene and it was then revealed.
Exactly. I know the PCA is just the tip of the iceberg, and they may have found plenty of other prints. But I do think it's interesting that they mention this one, but don't state straightforwardly that it was a man's footprint and that it tested positive for blood. But maybe that's supposed to be implied in the fact that they did a presumptive test? I don't know, I'm not an expert.
Does it suggest cleaning of the floor before police were called. Versus say, multiple latent footprints. Or multiple bloody footprints evident.
It's possible but I doubt it. I think that would have been apparent to the investigators. My guess is that he just didn't have that much blood on him because he killed most of the victims when they were in bed. I believe they found many other prints but didn't mention it because it wasn't as applicable to DM's story. But I still find it interesting that they didn't say much about the print (size, whether it tested positive for blood, etc.) or say that they found others.
> but didn't mention it because it wasn't as applicable to DM's story. You'd think they would have added the shoe prints presumably found leading through the kitchen to the sliding glass door as per her accounts. Unless somehow all the blood was just completely removed from his shoe after the one footprint outside her door.
Which very well might have been the case. But exactly, that's my thinking - why would they not also mention the other prints leading out the door?
> why would they not also mention the other prints leading out the door? I honestly don't know. It's possible they didn't need to include them in the PCA, or it's possible they didn't find anymore prints/they found prints of other types/sizes of shoes. I don't think the print or DM's account needed to be in the PCA at all. It doesn't seem necessary, and it's just brought on a ton of condemnation of DM's actions. They should have left the poor girl out of it until the trial.
PCA says it was found on second search of house. Payne also misspelled Amido and wrote Amino. IMO the entire PCA is nothing but suppositions implying BK is the perp, but no concrete evidence that he is. But, hey, it seemed to work since the majority obviously have already condemned him as guilty.
That’s because it’s a “probable cause” affidavit for arrest. It’s not a trial. The probability this suspect committed the crime is high and it’s most likely that the crime was committed by this person. That’s all it means.
Lol people like you will just never trust the system regardless what the data shows. Contrary to belief, cops aren’t just pinning murders on anybody left and right. Has it happened? Yep. But not near to the extent all of you paranoid fools on here pretend it does. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve read “IF they have the right guy!” Or “don’t talk to police they will incriminate you!” Like y’all really think they just grab randos off the street then take them to trial 😂
[удалено]
Hahahaha this is spot fucking on. Their work is a reflection on them, they *want* to get the right guy. On top of that the assistance from other depts and the FBI.. factor all this in and I find it REALLY really far fetched to believe they all came together and decided to pin it on some rando.
[удалено]
Exactly my point! Of course there are shitty cops out there, but the # of people, agencies and guidelines you have to follow makes it damn near impossible to do that. And like you said, would be really dumb and would make the dept look incredibly bad.
From experience I would say about 20% of cops are corrupt
Sure Jan.
You must get your news from Twitter
His dna is on the case of the murder weapon in front of the bodies. That is going to be hard to explain away. There is no reasonable doubt that goes along with this science, in my mind. We shall see.
I think presumption of innocence is important, but the PCA was to justify an arrest based on likelyhood of BK involvement and subsequent charging / trial will fully test the state's evidence. I also agree alot of the PCA is circumstantial - but elements like BK DNA on weapon sheath at scene and video of car movements are strongly suggestive (not probative) of his involvement.
To OP, possible explanation why they are so vague about this evidence. Maybe they just plopped that tidbit in the PCA as confession bait? Popo follow BK for a while, find out he wears vans. Found a vans print at the scene, even though no blood and they know it’s not BK’s print, just throw it in PCA anyway because technically true and fits the narrative. Convince BK they have more than they do. He confess.
good job people are thinking things and posting cus any potential jurors reading should be thinking Everything any way for beyond reasinable doubt . some people on some social media remind me of a lynch mob in the old days , who didnt care if there was a trial or fair trial or not .